Re: Me vs MBNA court case looming help please / **DISCONTINUED**

[Mr Happy]

Comments referred to posts which have been removed:D

 

Mr Happy, stephdavies now has her own thread I have linked it below.

Edited June 18, 2009 by citizenB

[diddydicky]

stephdavies new thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/204561-offer-account-settlement-mbna.html#post2228387

Edited June 18, 2009 by citizenB
post to which the comment refererred has been moved

[Mr Happy]

Grrr

 

Don't they ever give up.

 

They have not let it drop and I have another date in September.

 

This is getting right on my bits now.

 

Haven't heard from Restons yet, what can they have that beats the DN failure.

[diddydicky]

Just a side note.

 

Will this debt be written off my credit report, I am not really bothered because I have gone off credit in a big way just would be preferable in case it effects other things.

 

you are allowed to add a note to your credit file with experian equifax and call credit

 

for instance "disputed debt- court case won" or whatever happens to be the case

 

although you can add quite a few words FEW words are better than a long "speil"

[Mr Happy]

Grrr

 

Don't they ever give up.

 

They have not let it drop and I have another date in September.

 

This is getting right on my bits now.

 

Haven't heard from Restons yet, what can they have that beats the DN failure.

 

 

Bump

[cashins]

Haven't heard from Restons yet, what can they have that beats the DN failure.

 

They may well try and argue that it doesn't matter.

 

If that doesn't work they will then try and argue that the account is not terminated and they can simply issue another one.

 

David

[creditcardmug]

there is nothing stopping the assignment of a live account to a dca or any other entity that is properly licenced- but they take with it all the good and bad.

 

if a dca is acting on behalf of a creditor then the creditor is bound by the words and deeds of the dca

 

therefore if the creditor has issued a DN and then the DAC terminates on behalf of the creditor then the creditor is stuck with it

 

it is not for them to get a second bite at the cherry by alleging that the dca did or said something that they did not authorise

 

You need to READ the CCA 1974

 

You are so wrong, im afraid

Home - Statute Law Database

[Mr Happy]

How do I find a solicitor in my area who specialises in this type of thing that i could take to court with me, I guess they will be a bit more prepared this time so may be a bit more difficult, I would feel more confident with someone who understands the legalities with me,

 

They may just be bluffing, Restons sent me a copy of the court assignment letter today when I received one from the court the other day, scare tactics I assume.

 

Im not getting much feedback on my querying the DN and what they can do to have a vaild case, not sure if they can just resume the case unless they have proof of some other evidence that squashes my defence, do they just have to say we want to continue the case or do they need to show some evidence that it should be continued.

[diddydicky]

You need to READ the CCA 1974

 

You are so wrong, im afraid

Home - Statute Law Database

 

which part do you disagree with and why

[pedross]

I think you find the answer in the letter from Restons.

 

It is 'without prejudice except as for costs' which basically is saying that we will feed you this load of dribble and if you accept it great and if not you cannot throw it back at us. In fact what they are saying is that you cannot use it to help win the case although we are trying to mislead you but if you lose we can use it to get a bit extra in costs.

 

The post by BRW is to the point.

 

The Restons letter makes the point that they can claim the arrears which we all know, except that the arrears must be accurate.

 

They may be correct in stating that they can then issue another default notice but it will have no relevence because you will obviously object to it on the basis that the account has already been terminated.

 

I don't know if you have a dispute with the actual agreement at the moment. But if you do they are clutching at straws.

 

I believe that my summing up is correct, hopefully someone will agree or disagree with me to help you decide the way forward.

 

Pedross

[supasnooper]

Agree with the post of Pedross and would only add, that I think Viscount Stair puts over this point very succinctly -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2241864.html

[diddydicky]

Agree with the post of Pedross and would only add, that I think Viscount Stair puts over this point very succinctly -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2241864.html

 

thats useful but i am struggling with one of my DNs

 

there are a couple of months arrears ( due solely to failure to comply with s78)

 

now, if the creditor wants to terminate he has to give DN and 14 days to remedy the breach (arrears) simples,

 

however if he wants to demand repayment of outstanding sums (the balance) how can he "first" issue a DN

 

as in my case he has demanded the full amount of monies not yet due in the DN itself!! and given me 14 days to rectify the breach!!

 

how does that one work? he is saying if you dont pay the full amount in 14 days we will demand the full amount!!

[cashins]

as in my case he has demanded the full amount of monies not yet due in the DN itself!! and given me 14 days to rectify the breach!!

 

 

Then they have a problem with the DN.

 

A DN is required before:

 

Demanding the full amount (ie money not yet due).

 

To terminate the account.

 

BTW it doesn't matter a damn if their agreement says they can do that, (as the MBNA T&C's say they can). The CCA '74 also says no contract can overide the provisions of the act.

 

I wouldn't tell them about the DN just yet.

 

David

[Gazza112]

Hi All

 

Sorry to come in on this thread, Was just looking through this thread, and funny enough MBNA asked me for full payment but only gave me 12 day to pay the full sum.

Then a couple of months later issued a Defective DN.

So if my thread is any help to you, your welcome to look at it.

 

Gaz

 

Gaz

[underdog13]

Seems to be the latest ploy of MBNA to demand the full balance in the DN - they have done this to me and I have read of several others in various threads.

[diddydicky]

Then they have a problem with the DN.

 

A DN is required before:

 

Demanding the full amount (ie money not yet due).

 

To terminate the account.

 

BTW it doesn't matter a damn if their agreement says they can do that, (as the MBNA T&C's say they can). The CCA '74 also says no contract can overide the provisions of the act.

 

I wouldn't tell them about the DN just yet.

 

David

 

yes ive got no intention- there are dozens of these around

 

its not even as if it is a typo as it say IN FULL after the amount in order to emphasise it

 

the thing is what CAN they put in the section which requires you to remedy the breach within 14 days if not the full amount?

 

wierd it is!

[cashins]

the thing is what CAN they put in the section which requires you to remedy the breach within 14 days if not the full amount?

 

 

It should be the sum actually required to rectify the breach.

 

This is the arrears and in the case of a credit card, any amount which is required to bring it back into the credit limit.

 

David

[diddydicky]

It should be the sum actually required to rectify the breach.

 

This is the arrears and in the case of a credit card, any amount which is required to bring it back into the credit limit.

 

David

 

thanks that's what i thought

'

 

i

[diddydicky]

and not only that , but (and i know there is no de minimus when it comes to DN stated arrears due, when they quote a four or five figure sum as required to rectify the breach rather than a few hundred, IMO it will lead to one hell of a claim for unfair rescission since clearly the debtor is going to be intimidate into giving up completely at the thought of having to pay, say 12,000 to rectify a breach in 14 days

 

i can see these dn's coming back to bite the creditors very hard on the bum

[underdog13]

Oh I do hope so, DD:D

[zara35]

have a look at my thread....the fact the default notice was invalid made no difference to my case. Retsons argued that the ref to section 8 was an error on the part of mbna and that they are only human and can make errors.....they would probably argue in this case that it was an error to demand the full amount. It depends on the judge on the day. Be prepared to cover all angles at what they might use and have evidence to counteract it.

[diddydicky]

Oh I do hope so, DD:D

 

good old nationwide!!they sent hundreds of them out

[diddydicky]

have a look at my thread....the fact the default notice was invalid made no difference to my case. Retsons argued that the ref to section 8 was an error on the part of mbna and that they are only human and can make errors.....they would probably argue in this case that it was an error to demand the full amount. It depends on the judge on the day. Be prepared to cover all angles at what they might use and have evidence to counteract it.

 

what is the link to your thread?

on the face of it if you were arguing that the wrong clause of the agreement was quoted but everything else was ok than clearly IMO that would be de minimus

[pedross]

Seems to be the latest ploy of MBNA to demand the full balance in the DN - they have done this to me and I have read of several others in various threads.

 

Now I know that MBNA can do some silly things and I know that they are invincible!....but, this is something new from what I can see.

 

I think that they are up to something. I do not know just what at the moment, it may just be financial suicide, but I do not think that is the plan.

 

So, they obviously believe that they can claim the whole balance in the default notice and still claim that the account is running and not yet terminated.

 

Could it be that they are entitled to the amount stated because the T & C's state that 'You or your legal representative must pay your whole balance if - you fail to make a payment in full when it is due'.

 

I know there has already been some comments on this but they have a plan - what is it?

 

Pedross

[cashins]

Could it be that they are entitled to the amount stated because the T & C's state that 'You or your legal representative must pay your whole balance if - you fail to make a payment in full when it is due'.

 

I know there has already been some comments on this but they have a plan - what is it?

 

Good question.

 

I have seen a POC from them (Restons), where they tried to argue that as they had reduced the credit limit to zero, they could then demand the full balance without a DN.

 

Errrr... thats's a non starter. Off hand I can't remenber which clause it is, (anyone?), that specifically states that no provision in a regulated agreement can overide the CCA Act.

 

The same would apply to the above.

 

But you're right, they are up to something!

 

By now they must have a big pile of agreements where they have either cocked up the CCA or the DN. As their parent (Bank of America) is in such deep do do they must be getting a lot of pressure to do something about it.

 

David